Moneyball principles for college?

Originally Posted by J H:

…The consensus at the big league level is that a strikeout is far less detrimental than minimizing power potential due to a change in approach (opportunity cost, I suppose, would be a fitting term here).

Being pretty ignorant on the scale of baseball knowledge, I interpret that as meaning a hitter should never change his approach at the plate. If that’s incorrect, would you please explain why?

…From a scouting standpoint, a high strikeout rate could raise a red flag. It could also lead to a projection, given a player's athleticism and an organization's ability to make alterations and maximize the player's toolset. Again, strikeouts are not a good thing. But context is necessary when evaluating a player, at every level.

That sounds a lot like scouts DO use stats to at least some degree. (Just kidding, don’t get angry)

Originally Posted by Rob Kremer:

…This is not to say that OPB or K:BB ratio is the most important thing as a batter, just that I believe it is more-or-less an attribute of a hitter like power or speed that is somewhat inherent.

LOL! Aren’t all player stats really showing player attributes, but their importance is relative to the observer’s perspective?

FWIW, I happen to agree with you that there are many player attributes that can be seen in the numbers. The difficulty comes when looking at them from the perspective of them performing in a scout or coach’s system. Its tough picking which attributes are meaningful for a specific “system”.

I don’t have any problem with using K:BB ratio because those particular data points are objective. What do you think about looking at the number of PAs per reaching base safely? That’s a number based on objective numbers too because a player either has a PA or he doesn’t, and he either ends up on base after the PA or not.

Would the number of plate appearances per reaching base just be the inverse of OBP, except it would treat reached-on-error in the denominator?

To me, reaching on an error is many times a good thing in that it reflects that a player made contact and may have beat out a bobble in the infield. As such, it is often a reflection of speed. Faster guys can reach on a bobble in the infield whereas average or slower runners are still out. To me, this is one of the greatest assets of speed in baseball, reaching on an infield error.

Of course, with scoring, who knows. Slight bobble and bang bang at 1st might be scored a hit in some books. 

And then of course, reaching on an error can be the result of playing against inferior talent and poor defense and is meaningless.

Originally Posted by Rob Kremer:

Would the number of plate appearances per reaching base just be the inverse of OBP, except it would treat reached-on-error in the denominator?

It all depends on what you want to count as “reaching safely”. It could be reaching on CI, although its an admittedly low number, ROE as you noted, reaching on hits, reaching on BBs and HBPs, or rofc.

I do a stat I call RBA(Reached Base Average), but on the report of “objective” stats I “PAs per Reaching base”. I do it that way because some people find it easier to understand a player reaches base safely every 3.17 PAs than a RBA of .378.

But no matter what the format, trying to get rid of as many things that could be “tweaked” as possible is what I believe is important.

But not fielders choice? Oh, never mind, that is what rofc is.

Rob,

So now that we’re speaking pretty much the same language, and I don’t disagree that OBP is of at least some value as being projectionable, all I’m saying is, by adding the other ways to get on only makes its value somewhat higher.

We can argue about exactly what that value is, and that’s ok. That’s how these things are done. Its why one ML team’s scouts do better than another teams’, and why one ML team’s MiL system has more or better prospects. The general process is the same, but the little things make the difference.

I think we're still missing something in the definition of "Moneyball principles" and their application to college coaches.

Some of the back-and-forth here has been over how much attention pro scouts pay to high school statistics.  

JH, who is a scout, says he doesn't "use" high school stats.  Yet he also acknowledges at least looking at some numbers sometimes when he talks about what strikeout rates mean to him.

Stats alertly points out that this means JH does in fact "use" stats.

JH probably still thinks he does not.

They are probably both right.

It depends on what the meaning of "use" is.

In Moneyball, tension arose when "use" came to mean Billy Beane would rely on college stats to overrule his scouting staff's judgments about talent/projection, even to the point of making them the deciding factor in his draft decisions.    

When JH says he doesn't "use" high school stats, I don't think he's saying he doesn't look at them or "use" them to formulate any preliminary opinions about who to scout in person.  I think he's saying his assessment of a player's skill and potential will not be based on statistics, though it will be informed by "measurables." 

Stats for Gnats, on the other hand, uses a broad definition of "statistic" as discussed earlier in this thread, and a broad definition of "use."  

With respect to college coaches, I doubt any "use" high school stats in the Moneyball sense of believing them instead of their own eyes.  However, all or nearly all probably "use" them in Stats4Gnats terminology, even if its just to make sure they see the kid who hit 10 home runs or struck out 100 batters in a season.  I would also guess that college coaches sometimes "use" stats in JH's parlance and sometimes do not.  If they know they like what they see at a tournament, they may not even look at stats that won't change their mind.  

Originally Posted by Swampboy:

…It depends on what the meaning of "use" is…

Very true.

In Moneyball, tension arose when "use" came to mean Billy Beane would rely on college stats to overrule his scouting staff's judgments about talent/projection, even to the point of making them the deciding factor in his draft decisions.    

At that time, it was a sound course of action because everyone else was “stuck” in the same mode they’d been in for 100 years, and thus were missing ‘diamonds in the rough”. That wouldn’t work today because every club now uses the numbers to some degree too. That means there has to be use made of ALL possible tools.

When JH says he doesn't "use" high school stats, I don't think he's saying he doesn't look at them or "use" them to formulate any preliminary opinions about who to scout in person.  I think he's saying his assessment of a player's skill and potential will not be based on statistics, though it will be informed by "measurables." 

Stats for Gnats, on the other hand, uses a broad definition of "statistic" as discussed earlier in this thread, and a broad definition of "use."  

I think you’ve pretty much got me pegged. One thing I don’t think people understand about me is, I don’t look at the numbers or at a player and think to myself, “He’s ML material”. If anything I look at the numbers and the player and in my mind compare them to the players on the team I score for. I honestly don’t worry about any level but the one I see every day. When I was doing college scoring, I was doing the same thing. I feel I’m part of the team, and that’s where my concerns lie. I leave it to parents, players, and scouts to worry about the next level. I have more than enough to worry about with this one.

Swampboy- Good post.

Relative to the next level high school stats are like a brochure. They may draw some attention. But you want to see the product for validation.